Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

some time. "Do you want beef?" "No." The last cask had been serving all hands for ten days. "Then what do you want? Do you want bread?" 66 Yes, a little bread." "Much?" "No; only a few pounds." This was immediately ordered, and I asked to speak with the Captain. "Have you got a cabin to spare?" "No, my cabins are all engaged." "Can you make no arrangement to receive two passengers?" "Why, I never knew such a thing as passengers changing ships on the high_seas;" and, looking very suspicious, "Why do you want to change?" "I assure you we have sufficient reason; but there is not time to explain now if you fear that we should prove troublesome, we willingly refer you to the Captain whom we wish to leave." Still he declined: I again assured him that our reasons for changing were solely on the score of health and safety, adding, "I am a Wesleyan Missionary." "O," he replied, "that's enough, I know what kind of gentlemen they are; I have no fear of trouble from you: there is a cabin which the steward has been using." He then showed me a very neat cabin with double berth, with which I was abundantly satisfied: he then inquired as to my companion; and on learning that he was a gentleman, and of unexceptionable character, he said, "Well, I will just name the matter to the passengers." They readily agreed to increase their party; and the good Captain, on being requested to state terms, named a very moderate sum. I stayed below to write a letter, in case the old ship should first come to land. On reaching the deck I found the two ships close together. "Why, bless you," said Captain Muirhead, of the "British Isles," to his neighbour, "those sails will never carry you to England." "I have got a better suit below." With a large bag of bread, some pump-nails and leather, we returned to the wretchedlooking old ship. The men were glad to see the bread, and the Doctor overjoyed to find that, instead of a deck-passage to Algiers, or longer imprisonment in the he had a place secured for London in a good ship. We hastily put a few articles into the boat, the Captain was egregiously civil, the men surrounded us, and I took leave of them with blessings and prayers, which they heartily returned. I was most grieved to leave the poor children and the steerage passenger on board; but I could not interfere to remove them, and there was one comfort, that they would have so much the better fare for our absence; for the Captain did not know that the Doctor was going to leave till after he had ordered his "few pounds" of bread. No sooner were we on board our new ship, which was from Demerara, than the passengers surrounded us to hear our tale: whilst we were reciting it, the steward came up and cried, "Lunch." That was a strange word to us, but not at all unwelcome. I shall not easily forget the Doctor's joy on seeing upon the cabin-table a bread-basket filled with nice white bread; nor is it to be denied, that, after my breakfast of paddy, I thought it a very pleasant sight. Captain Muirhead proved a kind and able Commander, the passengers agreeable, the table all that could be desired, and the "British Isles" a right good ship. The Doctor's health immediately began to improve, and our convalescence was mutual.

In less than a fortnight, on the morning of September 26th, from the cabin-window, I saw a high cliff crowned by Dover Castle. We were lying to for a pilot; and before midnight we moored abreast the entrance to the West India Docks. The care of God had been conspicuous throughout the voyage; its close was crowned with mercies; and as, looking round on the flashing lights of London, I felt that all its dangers were past, and the desired harbour gained, my whole soul was moved to thanksgiving.

Kneeling down to utter those thanksgivings, the recollection came, that the separation from my Mission was now consummated even in the joy of that moment the reflection brought a pang, which led to a solemn renewal of the resolution, that, live where I might, the best of my strength should be devoted to the interests of India.

HORE BIBLICE.

No. XIX.-BLOOD-REVENGE, OR REVENGE FOR BLOODSHED. BLOOD-REVENGE, or revenge for bloodshed, was regarded among the Jews, as among all the ancient and Asiatic nations, not only as a right, but even as a duty, which devolved upon the nearest relative of the murdered person, who on this account was called 11 (goël hădām), the “reclaimer of blood," or one who demands restitution of blood, similar to the Latin sanguinem repetere.

The Mosaical law (Num. xxxv. 31) expressly forbids the acceptance of a ransom for the forfeited life of the murderer, although it might be saved by his seeking an asylum at the altar of the tabernacle, in case the homicide was accidentally committed. (Exod. xxi. 13; 1 Kings i. 50; ii. 28.) When, however, in process of time, after Judaism had been fully developed, no other sanctuary was tolerated but that of the temple at Jerusalem, the chances of escape of such an homicide from the hands of the avenger, ere he reached the gates of the temple, became less in proportion to the distance of the spot where the murder was committed from Jerusalem, six "cities of refuge" (bpy oreh miklot) were in consequence appointed for the momentary safety of the murderer, in various parts of the kingdom, the roads to which were kept in good order to facilitate his escape. (Deut. xix. 3.) Thither the avenger durst not follow him; and there he lived in safety until a proper examination had taken place before the authorities of the place, (Joshua xx. 6, 9,) in order to ascertain whether the murder was a wilful act or not. In the former case he was instantly delivered up to the Goël, against whom not even the altar could protect him; (Exod. xxi. 14; 1 Kings ii. 29;) in the latter case, though he was not actually delivered into the hands of the Goël, he was notwithstanding not allowed to quit the precincts of the town, but was obliged to remain there all his lifetime, or until the death of the High-Priest, (Num. xxxv. 6; Deut. xix. 3; Joshua xx. 1-6,) if he would not run the risk of falling into the hands of the avenger, and be slain by him with impunity. (Num. xxxv. 26; Deut. xix. 6.) That such a voluntary exile was considered more in the light of a punishment for manslaughter than a provision for the safe retreat of the homicide against the revengeful designs of the is evident from Num. xxxv. 32, where it is expressly forbidden to release him from his confinement on any condition whatever. That the decease of the High-Priest should have been the means of restoring him to liberty was probably owing to the general custom among the ancients, of granting free pardon to certain prisoners at the demise of their legitimate Prince or Sovereign, whom the High-Priest represented, in a spiritual sense, among the Jews. These wise regulations of the Mosaical law, as far as the spirit of the age allowed it, prevented all family hatred, persecution, and war from ever taking place, as was inevitably the case among the other nations, where any bloodshed whatever, whether wilful or accidental, laid the

homicide open to the duteous revenge of the relatives and family of the slain person, who again in their turn were then similarly watched and hunted by the opposite party, until a family-war of extermination had legally settled itself from generation to generation, without the least prospect of ever being brought to a peaceful termination. Nor do we indeed find in the Scriptures the least trace of any abuse or mischief ever having arisen from these regulations. (Compare 2 Sam. ii. 19, seq.; iii. 26, seq.)

That such institutions are altogether at variance with the spirit of Christianity, may be judged from the fact that revenge, so far from being counted a right or duty, was condemned by Christ and his Apostles as a vice and passion to be shunned. (Acts vii. 60; Matt. v. 44; Luke vi. 28; Rom. xii. 14, seq.; compare Rom. xiii., where the power of executing revenge is vested in the authorities alone.)

Of all the other nations, the Greeks and Romans alone seem to have possessed such "cities of refuge," (Serv. ad En. viii., 342; Liv., i., 8; Tac. Ann., iii., 60,) of which Daphne, near Antioch, seems to have been one of the most prominent, (2 Macc. iv. 34; compare Potter's Greek Archæol., i., 480,) and to have served as a refuge even for wilful murderers. The laws and customs of the ancient Greeks in cases of murder may be gathered from the principle laid down by Plato on that head (De Legib., ix. in tom. ix., p. 28, seq.): "Since, according to tradition, the murdered person is greatly irritated against the murderer during the first few months after the perpetration of the deed, the murderer ought therefore to inflict a punishment upon himself, by exiling himself from his country for a whole year; and, if the murderer be a foreigner, by keeping away from his country. If the homicide subjects himself to such a punishment, it is but fair that the nearest relative should be appeased and grant pardon; but in case he does not submit to that punishment, or dares even to enter the temple while the guilt of blood is still upon his hands, the avenger shall arraign him before the bar of justice, where he is to be punished with the infliction of a double fine. But in case the avenger neglects to proceed against him, the guilt passes over to him, (the avenger,) and any one may take him before the Judge, who passes on him the sentence of banishment for five years."

The high estimation in which blood-revenge stood among the ancient Arabs may be judged of from the fact, that it formed the subject of their most beautiful and elevated poetry. (Compare the Scholiast. Taurizi to the sixteenth poem in Schulten's Excerp. Hamas.) Mahomet did not abolish, but modify, that rigorous custom, by allowing the acceptance of a ransom in money for the forfeited life of the murderer, (Koran, ii., 173-175,) and at the worst, forbidding the infliction of any cruel or painful death. (Ibid., xvii., 35.)

In Europe the custom of blood-revenge is still prevalent in Corsica and Sardinia, where, however, it is more the consequence of a vindictive character than of an established law or custom. A Corsican never passes over an insult without retaliation either on the offender or his family; and this cruel and unchristian custom (vendetta traversa, "mutual vengeance") is the source of many assassinations. The celebrated General Paoli did his best to eradicate this abominable practice; but his dominion was of too short duration for the effective cure of the evil, which has gained ground ever since the first French Revolution, even among the female sex. It is calculated that about four hundred persons yearly lose their lives in Sardinia by this atrocious habit. (Simonot, Lettres sur la Corse., p. 314.)-Kitto.

175

"THE CHRISTIAN WITNESS."

(To the Editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine.)

Ir has often been said, that "the press is a mighty agent;" but, that the whole truth may be expressed, it should be added, "both for good and for evil." As worked by human beings, its results, when we only refer to human power, will show the mixed elements of the characters of those by whom it is employed. Perhaps one of the chief sources of what is evil in its results, is occasioned by the tendency of man's corrupt nature to make himself ، a busybody in other men's matters;" to erect himself into a sort of censor-general, and to show his own wisdom and goodness by searching for the faults into which his fellows have fallen, and exposing them to public view. I do not wonder that the honoured promoters of the “Evangelical Alliance" have adopted an explicit rule on this very subject. Angry controversy, in which victory has been the object rather than truth, or controversy for which there has been no call,—seeing that those who differed from each other, differed only on subordinate topics, were, on the one side and on the other, "fully persuaded in their own minds," and content to do as much good as possible in their own manner, without "falling out by the way,"-such controversy, angry, promotive of anger, and uncalled for, has long been the bane of the church. Bigotry belongs exclusively to no party. He is the bigot, whatever his regimental facings, who says, "Take your Bibles according to my interpretation, and you will be right; but, till then, you are wrong." Dr. A. comes from Rome, and tells us to listen to the present Church; that is, in effect, to himself. Dr. B. comes from Oxford, and tells us to listen to the early Church, still meaning, practically, himself. And then comes Dr. C. from somewhere else, it matters not where, and tells us, verbally, to go to the Bible ; but, in reality, to his own comment upon it. As if they to whom he addresses himself had not had the Bible, and read it, and meditated on it, and drawn their conclusions from it, long before he was born!

I have often felt thankful that the Wesleyan Magazine, so far as my own memory reaches, has been conducted on a very different principle; and I am persuaded that this is not only the RIGHT, but the GAINFUL, way of proceeding. The Wesleyans would not tolerate for a year a periodical, bearing their name, which should seem to be always on the watch for opportunities of finding fault with others. They expect that if their own system be attacked, it shall be defended; but if their Editors were seen ever ready, if there were any disputes in some other religious society, to rush in, and aggravate the disputes by thus taking part in them; or if these other societies were dwelling in peace, and seeking to promote their Saviour's honour in the support and extension of his cause, still to endeavour to disturb them, by making the Magazine a vehicle of attack on their respective systems, or of sarcastic observations on their proceedings; or offering its pages as the medium by which the disaffected and factious (and, from the times when the New Testament was written, what church has ever been long without the factious and disaffected?) may utter their complainings, and labour to awaken suspicions, and stir up strife; if such was the conduct of their Editors towards other religious communities, the Wesleyans would with one voice condemn it as being dishonourable and wrong, ungentlemanlike, uncourteous, and unchristian. I have no wish to

witness any departure from this long-standing rule of non-interference. Self-defence may occasionally demand the insertion of polemic articles; but even these, I trust, will be for the most part confined to a sufficient reply. All the contention will refer, I hope, to "the faith once delivered to the saints;" and when reply is required by calumny, it will be given by sufficient and undeniable explanation.

The Editor of the "Christian Witness," in the Number for January, devotes an article, in his own manner, to the consideration of “Wesleyan Methodism." At first, this might appear to be a manifesto from the whole body of the Congregational churches in this country; for the wrapper says, "The Christian Witness,-the official Organ of the Congregational Union of England and Wales.” But it is soon after added, "For the general Contents the Editor is responsible." At first this seems contradictory. Here is an "official organ," and, next, a "responsible Editor." I will take, however, the more favourable view; and I believe it is the correct one. What documents the Congregational Union furnishes respecting its proceedings are here communicated. So far it is the "official organ ;' but no farther. For all other articles "the Editor is responsible ;" and therefore, in everything but the official documents supplied by the Union, the "Christian Witness" is just a private publication; a publication for whose contents, with the above exception, only the Editor is responsible; so that it takes its place among the other private periodicals of the day,— the Blackwoods, and Frasers, and so on. Still, I do think the distinction ought to be more plainly marked. As it is, it savours too much of evasion. It seems as though there were somewhere a wish to obtain in the market the credit of the Congregational Union, while yet articles are inserted which, I am firmly persuaded, that Union would be the first to repudiate. It is my sincere opinion that the members of the Union regard the paper to which I have referred with no more favour than do the Wesleyan Methodists themselves.

The professed object of the paper is thus stated :—“ "And here "—that is, in reference to Wesleyan Methodism-"the great point of inquiry is, the extent to which the work of God is visibly advancing in the several branches of that community." It is only in passing that I would remark on the last word. Wesleyan Methodism is but one community. There have been secessions from it; and thus have communities perfectly separate and independent been formed. So far as the work of God is concerned, there is among them no direct co-operation. Should this work decline among them all, it will be for reasons altogether peculiar to each. Should it flourish among them all,—and I cannot hesitate to say, God grant that it may!-the instrumental causes will still be entirely distinct.

And as to the object of the inquiry,-"the work of God,”—the phrase is a most solemn one, and requires to be treated with solemnity. He who sympathizes with God's work for its own sake, and on no sectarian grounds, (for Jehu, while driving along furiously, and seeking to run down all that interfered with his own exclusive domination, could talk, in his way very piously, about his zeal for the Lord,) will always exhibit that spirit of kindness and love, of charitable construction and mutual forbearance, which it invariably inspires in all who have themselves experienced it. Sectarian zeal seeks, as a matter of course, to imitate Christian zeal; but is, in truth, its very antipodes. Could I have persuaded myself that I had seen this unsectarian zeal in the article before me, my remarks on it would never have been penned.

« AnteriorContinuar »